Update, 26 September 2026: The court entered judgment on 23 September 2026. The judge granted the parties’ joint motion for entry of final judgment and vacated the definition of “most integrated setting” in 45 C.F.R. § 84.10, section 84.76 in its entirety, sections 84.43(d) and 84.68(d), and the final, priority-of-service sentences of sections 84.22(b) and 84.93(b) (Order and Final Judgment, Texas v. Kennedy, No. 5:24-CV-225-H, N.D. Tex., 23 September 2026). Because the provisions were vacated rather than narrowed to the parties, they no longer apply anywhere in the country, not only in the plaintiff states. The court dismissed the states’ other claims without prejudice, meaning they could be raised again in a new case. The case is now closed. Section 504, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Olmstead itself have not changed: only the integration provisions added to the 2024 HHS rule were struck. The update below, from 24 September, and the account beneath it are left as they stood before this order, for the record of how the case reached this point.
Update, 24 September 2026: The briefing schedule described below was overtaken at the end of August. On 31 August 2026 the United States Department of Justice, acting for Health and Human Services, filed a joint motion with the remaining states asking the judge to enter final judgment and strike every reference to community integration from the Section 504 rules. The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, whose tracker this article follows, records that there will be no more briefing and that the briefs once scheduled for 22 September “will never be filed.” DREDF also records that Louisiana and Montana re-appeared on the pleadings as of 1 September, so five states are now named rather than three: Alaska, Florida, Louisiana, Montana and Texas. The court had not entered the proposed judgment when this update was written. DREDF adds that the proposed resolution would remove the integration provision from the rules rather than from the law, and that Section 504, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead itself are unchanged by it.
A lawsuit that could reshape how the United States enforces the right of people with disabilities to live in their own communities is still before a federal court in Texas, though its centre of gravity has shifted from the courtroom to the federal agencies. It is worth following on this side of the border, both because the legal question is fundamental and because it shows how differently Canada and the United States build the same protection. The account below was written as at 21 August 2026 and is left as it stood, with the update above carrying what has changed since. The case tracker it relies on was last updated on 1 September 2026.
What the case is
The case now called Texas v. Kennedy began in 2024 as Texas v. Becerra, when seventeen states challenged Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the United States law barring disability discrimination in federally funded programs. DREDF’s case tracker dates the amended complaint to 25 January 2026 and puts nine states behind it. They no longer argue that Section 504 itself is unconstitutional. Instead, they ask the court to strike down key federal regulations that spell out how the law is enforced, and in particular the integration mandate, which the states say is unlawful and unconstitutional.
That mandate flows from the United States Supreme Court’s 1999 Olmstead decision, which held that people with disabilities have the right to receive publicly funded services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs, rather than in institutions. It is the legal backbone of community-based care in the United States.
Who is still in, and who has left
The list of states has shrunk steadily since the amended complaint. Indiana withdrew on 1 May 2026, South Dakota on 12 May, Kansas on 10 June, and Missouri on 20 July. Louisiana and Montana had not filed a formal notice of dismissal and for a period did not appear on the pleadings, which left three states actively pursuing the case through the summer: Alaska, Florida, and Texas. Both re-appeared on the pleadings as of 1 September 2026, which brings the total back to five (Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund case tracker, updated 1 September 2026).
The states pursuing the case argue, in broad terms, that the federal regulations reach beyond what the statute authorizes. Disability organizations that have lined up against the challenge, including the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, The Arc, and the National Health Law Program, say that unwinding the integration mandate would weaken the clearest legal tool people have to avoid being pushed into institutional care. We report both positions as the parties’ own; the court has not ruled.
The clock, and why it moved
The summary judgment briefing schedule started on 4 May 2026. It has since been extended twice. After the court granted the federal government a further extension on 13 July, the federal opposition was due 31 August 2026 and the states’ reply was set for 22 September 2026, so the schedule ran to late September rather than early August. Disability organizations and their allies filed friend-of-the-court briefs on 22 July. The caution attached in the same tracker, that these briefs might never be filed at all, proved right: DREDF now records that they “will never be filed” (DREDF case tracker).
The development that may decide it before the court does
Two federal actions in June and July have changed the shape of the case, and they matter more than the calendar.
On 18 June 2026 the United States Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion stating that federal law, including Section 504 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, does not contain an integration mandate. The three remaining states moved on 1 July to put that opinion before the court as supplemental authority, and the court granted the motion on 8 July. Then on 20 July the Department published a notice in the Federal Register clarifying that its long-standing Olmstead guidance, first issued in 2011 and last updated in 2020, “and similar guidance documents are not enforceable,” that it “will not rely upon the Olmstead Guidance in its enforcement of Title II,” and that it plans to revisit the guidance in light of the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (91 FR 45287).
Two things are worth keeping separate here. A guidance document is not the law: Olmstead itself, Section 504, and the ADA are unchanged by a notice about how the Department will enforce them, and the Department’s notice says as much by describing the guidance as never having had the force of law. The same notice records the other half of the picture, that numerous courts have nonetheless treated the Olmstead guidance as authoritative, citing decisions from four federal appeal courts that did so. What has changed is federal enforcement posture. DREDF’s reading is that the Department of Health and Human Services, the defendant in the case, and the three remaining states are now “essentially on the same side” in the litigation, and that the parties may seek another pause to discuss a settlement that could include rulemaking. That is the organization’s assessment, not a ruling, and the court has decided nothing.
How Canada builds the same protection
Canada has no single statute that mirrors Section 504, and no exact equivalent of the Olmstead integration mandate. The right to live in the community is assembled here from different pieces: provincial and territorial policy on home and community care, human rights codes that require accommodation, and Canada’s commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, whose Article 19 recognizes the right to live independently and be included in the community.
The practical effect is that a Canadian reader watching this case is watching a stress test of a protection our own system delivers through a patchwork rather than one federal rule. Where the American right to community living is written into enforceable regulation, ours depends more on provincial programs and the funding behind them. That difference is the reason a ruling in a Texas courtroom is worth a Canadian reader’s attention.
For more on how the institution-versus-community question plays out here, see our coverage of when community living is just the old institution with a new invoice and what the recent accessibility-law wave actually gets you.
Frequently asked questions
What is Texas v. Kennedy?
The case began in 2024 as Texas v. Becerra, when seventeen states challenged Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the United States law barring disability discrimination in federally funded programs. The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund case tracker dates the amended complaint to 25 January 2026. The states no longer argue that Section 504 itself is unconstitutional. They ask the court to strike down key federal regulations that spell out how the law is enforced, and in particular the integration mandate.
What is the integration mandate?
It flows from the United States Supreme Court’s 1999 Olmstead decision, which held that people with disabilities have the right to receive publicly funded services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs, rather than in institutions. It is the legal backbone of community-based care in the United States.
Which states are still pursuing the case?
Five, as of 1 September 2026: Alaska, Florida, Louisiana, Montana and Texas. Indiana withdrew on 1 May 2026, South Dakota on 12 May, Kansas on 10 June and Missouri on 20 July. Louisiana and Montana did not appear on the pleadings for a period and re-appeared on 1 September, according to the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund case tracker updated that day.
What changed outside the courtroom in 2026?
On 18 June 2026 the United States Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion stating that federal law, including Section 504 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, does not contain an integration mandate. On 20 July the Department published a Federal Register notice, 91 FR 45287, saying its long-standing Olmstead guidance and similar guidance documents are not enforceable and that it will not rely on that guidance in enforcing Title II. A guidance document is not the law: Olmstead, Section 504 and the ADA are unchanged by a notice about how the Department will enforce them. What changed is federal enforcement posture.
How does Canada protect the right to live in the community?
Canada has no single statute that mirrors Section 504 and no exact equivalent of the Olmstead integration mandate. The right is assembled here from different pieces: provincial and territorial policy on home and community care, human rights codes that require accommodation, and Canada’s commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, whose Article 19 recognizes the right to live independently and be included in the community.
Sources
- Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Texas v. Kennedy: What it is and how you can help (case tracker, updated 24 July 2026)
- United States Department of Justice, Clarification on Department of Justice guidance on enforcement of the integration mandate, 91 FR 45287 (20 July 2026)
- National Health Law Program, Indiana withdraws from Texas v. Kennedy lawsuit
- Disability Scoop, States ask federal court to strike disability protections
- American Council of the Blind, Update to the Texas v. Kennedy lawsuit
- The Arc, DOJ opinion on Olmstead threatens the right of people with disabilities to live in the community
Living Unlimited reports on legal developments as information, not legal advice. Nothing here is a position on the merits of the case.
